Today's Creation Moment

Mar

31

How Many Smells Can You Smell?

Psalm 45:8

"All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad."

Until recently it was commonly thought that humans can smell approximately 10,000 different odors. But that's no longer thought to be true. So how many different odors can that nose in the middle of...

Dinosaur Bones "Buried" By Evolutionists!

A recent presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics meeting in Singapore showed C-14 dates of soft tissue found in dinosaur bones to be in the range from 22,000 - 39,000 years old. Previously, it has been assumed that dinosaurs died out over 65 million years ago, so these new findings are astonishing and should have made international news. But shortly after the presentation was made at the meeting, the abstract was removed from the meeting’s website.

So it appears that instead of making international news, these findings have been buried. First, let’s look at what was actually being presented.

The organic matter (collagen) and hard carbonate bone mineral (bioapatite) in the bone samples were analyzed. The samples came from several species of dinosaurs (acrocanthosaur, hadrosaurus, triceratops and apatosaurus) taken from various sites in Texas, Colorado, Arkansas and Montana. The samples were meticulously handled and cleaned to avoid possible contamination. The carbon-14 (C-14) levels in these samples were measured using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS). The resultant C-14 ages obtained from these samples were consistently in the 22,000 - 39,000 years range. The fact that the samples were from a variety of species and sites all giving consistent results greatly reduces the chance that the results are from contamination.

The theoretical upper limit for C-14 dating is ten times the half-life, or about 57,000 years. The proposed practical upper limit for C-14 dating is between 40,000 - 50,000 years. While some samples fell close to the 40,000 year upper limit, 16 out of 20 (80%) were aged at 35,000 years or younger, well within the acceptable upper C-14 dating limits.

While other researchers have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones and C-14 dates in these ranges, this current study has been the most comprehensive. The fact that there is any collagen at all remaining in these bone samples is amazing, considering that they are supposed to be older than 65 million years. Protein just doesn’t hang around that long! And that there is any C-14 in them also is reason to possibly question conventional wisdom. But why have we not heard about any of this in the news? Shouldn't there have been at least a 15-second blip from one of the media outlets? But the media have been silent and the abstract pulled from the meeting proceedings. The sacred cow of evolution once again remains intact.

We truly are living in an age of great deception. “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

Notes: http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

This article, by Creation Moments board member Dr. Don Clark, is based on an interview broadcast by Broken Road Radio. To hear the interview and many others on biblical creation topics, go to http://brokenroadradio.com/morning-show-september-17-2012/

A recent presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics meeting in Singapore showed C-14 dates of soft tissue found in dinosaur bones to be in the range from 22,000 - 39,000 years old. Previously, it has been assumed that dinosaurs died out over 65 million years ago, so these new findings are astonishing and should have made international news. But shortly after the presentation was made at the meeting, the abstract was removed from the meeting’s website!

So it appears that instead of making international news, these findings have been buried. First, let’s look at what was actually being presented.

The organic matter (collagen) and hard carbonate bone mineral (bioapatite) in the bone samples were analyzed. The samples came from several species of dinosaurs (acrocanthosaur, hadrosaurus, triceratops and apatosaurus) taken from various sites in Texas, Colorado, Arkansas and Montana. The samples were meticulously handled and cleaned to avoid possible contamination. The carbon-14 (C-14) levels in these samples were measured using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS). The resultant C-14 ages obtained from these samples were consistently in the 22,000 - 39,000 years range. The fact that the samples were from a variety of species and sites all giving consistent results greatly reduces the chance that the results are from contamination.

The theoretical upper limit for C-14 dating is ten times the half-life, or about 57,000 years. The proposed practical upper limit for C-14 dating is between 40,000 - 50,000 years. While some samples fell close to the 40,000 year upper limit, 16 out of 20 (80%) were aged at 35,000 years or younger, well within the acceptable upper C-14 dating limits.

While other researchers have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones and C-14 dates in these ranges, this current study has been the most comprehensive. The fact that there is any collagen at all remaining in these bone samples is amazing, considering that they are supposed to be older than 65 million years. Protein just doesn’t hang around that long! And that there is any C-14 in them also is reason to possibly question conventional wisdom. But why have we not heard about any of this in the news? Shouldn't there have been at least a 15-second blip from one of the media outlets? But the media have been silent and the abstract pulled from the meeting proceedings. The sacred cow of evolution once again remains intact.

We truly are living in an age of great deception. “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

This article, by Creation Moments board member Dr. Don Clark, is based on an interview broadcast by Broken Road Radio. To hear the interview and many others on biblical creation topics, go to http://brokenroadradio.com/morning-show-september-17-2012/

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2012-10-02 10:04.

There are two major problems. First is the fact that you are claiming that the 14C dates for dinosaur bones are reliable in indicating a far younger age than a vast quantity of other evidence indicates, while at the same time radiometric dating is slandered as unreliable by creation science, and even a date of 22,000 years is far older than creation science is willing to accept. Secondly, the claim that this particular dating is likely to be reliable has two serious problems with it. First, the claim that 14C is reliable up to 40-50,000 years requires significant caveats. Ages that high for 14C require very precise measurement, not possible with all instruments. Also, contamination is a serious problem even for a very clean sample. Anyone touching the sample, any trace of bacteria or fungi or modern dirt, or even any modern air will provide a significant input of 14C compared to what's in a sample essentially lacking 14C. Even if every possible precaution has been taken to keep a sample clean, the act of analyzing it will allow small amounts of 14C from the air to get mixed in with the sample. Secondly, the consistent values across multiple samples from multiple localities is strong evidence that the results come from contamination rather than from the samples, which would be expected to show different values. Dinosaurs existed for a large interval of time. Whether you are trying to squeeze them into a young-earth type model (e.g., RATE) or following conventional geologic time, there should be a major difference between the Triceratops and Apatosaurus due to their occurence in different, widely separated layers if in fact the measured dates were really derived from the bones.

Yes, this is an age of great deception. Creation Moments and other creation science organizations are telling ridiculous lies (whether through ignorance or willful deception) to promote their false gospel of creationism. Salvation is through the work of Jesus, not by believing something in particular about the time and method of creation.

Submitted by Hugh Miller (not verified) on Fri, 2012-10-12 10:03.

The solution to the challenge of deception by "anonymous" is for paleontologists and others in Academia to test for C-14 in dinosaur bones in bone repositories world-wide. Deletion of abstracts from web sites just because the data does not agree with the current paradigm of origins is censorship as the abstract was originally approved for delivery AND THEN PRESENTED. Regarding the 22,000 to 39,000 year range the actual or real age could have been much younger as noted below as well as other very good scientific reasons.

COULD DINOSAURS & OTHER LIFE FORMS BE EVEN YOUNGER?
14C ages for dinosaurs from Texas to Alaska and even China and Europe show that the alleged 65 - 225 M years between man and dinosaurs do not exist. Could their bones be even younger than 22,000-39,000 radiocarbon years obtained at five different labs including the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia? Yes! The long 14C ages for “some” living plants suggest that 10,000 14C years & beyond for dinosaurs & other life forms could be their maximum 14C ages. Real ages could be much younger depending on 14C content of ingested nutrients.* Could dinosaurs have interacted with historical man as distinct depictions of many “dragons” alias dinosaurs and their embellishments suggest? Yes, books and web sites document dinosaur depictions world-wide.** Lab reports available.
* False Older 14C Ages from Old Carbon Absorption
10,000 RC(a) years for a living tree growing next to a German airport as a result of consuming old carbon dioxide from engine exhausts [1].
17,300 to 24,750 RC years BP for living plants growing in 14C deficient water of Montezuma’s well of Arizona; some living gastropods will give very old ages too [2]. The base rock of this is limestone
4800 RC years BP for a live plant subjected to gas from an ancient carbon dioxide source thus confirming the mechanism and the field to lab C-14 data. [3]. (a) RC is Radiocarbon - another name for 14C; by admitting an electron, 14C with a half-life of 5730 ± 40 years decays into the stable non-radioactive isotope Nitrogen -14.
[1] “Recording gaseous exchange under field conditions,” The Physiology of Forest Trees, K. V. Thinmann ed., New York, (1958) p. 194, cited in Ginenthal, op cit. p. 174.

Swift, Dennis, 2006. Secrets of the Ica Stones publisher N/A; available on Amazon or <a href="http://www.dinosaursandman.com/" title="http://www.dinosaursandman.com/">http://www.dinosaursandman.com/</a> ≈500 to 1500 real years in Mexico & SA etc. CONCLUSION: If the 14C ages in the 1000’s of years for other dinosaurs and shale world-wide prove consistently reproducible by other scientists then most dinosaurs in the fossil record must have met their end in a universal cataclysm as science suggests; BUT, 2000 times more recently than the conventional wisdom of 65 Ma BP. Needless to say this is indeed an explosive topic but scientists have an obligation to check such important anomalies for validity as part of the scientific method and search for truth in science. An international conference of experts could be convened to design field & lab research studies using modern paleohydraulics (how sediments and rocks form), mineralogy (how minerals form) and 14C dating methods.

Submitted by Boggled Mind (not verified) on Sun, 2012-10-28 22:38.

It is truly bizarre that some of you guys can clearly read, can clearly spell and write articulate sentences, and apparently are able to successfully navigate normal society, but are yet so completely stark-raving irrational in your thoughts. It's a little frightening how otherwise sane people can be so thoroughly brainwashed. It boggles the mind.

Submitted by April (not verified) on Thu, 2012-11-01 11:58.

What's truly bizarre is that someone can deny God and yet expect that his arrogance should be interpreted as intelligence. It's not. Anyone who turns away from such a great salvation offered by our merciful Savior is the veriest fool indeed.

Submitted by Craig Chilton (not verified) on Fri, 2012-12-21 20:44.

Might you by any chance be in the market for a nice BRIDGE in New York City that I understand someone is selling the deed to -- tollgates and all? Because i understand that the seller is particularly interested in finding potential customers who don't believe that God is omnipotent enough to have created the evolutionary process right along with the rest of the universe... and who could easily have spent billions of years doing it.

Let us unboggle your mind. Join the Creation Moments Forum group on Facebook ... and we'll see who's the one being irrational.

Submitted by Michael (not verified) on Sun, 2012-11-18 13:48.

Do you ever stop to think that it is you evolutionists who are brainwashed? We creationists grew up all around your evolution BS. I believed in evolution for 20 years and understood it very well untill i heard the other side with an open mind and honest heart. I think the ones brainwashed are the ones who have only heard the one side that predominates most public outlets of learning. All of us creationists know both sides, but most of you evolutionists know only one side. THAT, my friend, is "brainwashed".

The point he was making was that dinosaurs actually show up on the carbon dating method when they're not supposed to. Let me educate you on the system because you seem smart enough. If you carbon date something alive today you will get many, many "clicks" from your geiger counter representing the radioactive decay. If you Cdate something 2000 years old you get less clicks. Follow me so far? You stop hearing clicks around 50,000 years or so. If you Cdate dinos then you should get absolutely NO clicks from your geiger counter because they are supposedly 65 million years old!. But we are still getting clicks from these dinos. You see the dilemma?

Submitted by Mark (not verified) on Tue, 2012-12-04 23:36.

Michael brings up a good point...many of us went to public school where evolution was taught as fact and we saw pictures of half ape, half man creatures which we now know were simply an artist's rendition of what the missing links were supposed to look like based on a small bone fragment here and there. We now know that Darwinism is code blue and in fact is more a hypothesis than theory. Evolutionists know this and so we see this increase in name calling and the assumption that creationists are a bunch of country bumpkins. Clearly it's evolutionists that haven't studied creation science.

Submitted by April (not verified) on Mon, 2013-01-28 20:14.

It's not creationists who are uneducated about evolutionism — you get plenty of it in school as required curriculum. It's the evolutionists who are uneducated about reality. They live in a bubble of carefully selected "evidence" that is really interpretation. Anything that doesn't fit their theory gets cast out, even when it adheres to all their preconceived standards of accurate measurement. I can't count how many times I've heard evolutionists merely repeat what a scientist conjectured as if it were fact. In fact, most of the time, evolutionists don't bother with primary sources. They just go by hearsay.

Submitted by Cheryl (not verified) on Sat, 2013-07-06 09:31.

You might consider in your quest to answer your question, that perhaps you are somehow spiritually blind and therefore unable and unwilling too seek out truth of the matter. I can clarify it with a simple metaphor if you're willing to consider it.

As you might have heard by now, physicists have recently disclosed they believe they can prove the universe operates much like a computer simulation and that they have evidence to prove it. With this in mind it might be easier for you to understand God is similar in nature to a human computer programmer who operates in another dimension of time and space since he created the program we're in.

Now placing the Bibllical Word into this computer programming paradigm, it might make it easier for you to understand what is going on with this explanation that is all rooted in scripture. That is that the fall of man occurred in the Garden of Eden after Satan, a fallen angel and "hacker" who believed he could usurp and become God Himself, tempted Adam and Eve thus infecting their minds much like a computer virus. When Satan infected the human mind our world became twisted with his becoming the god of our world and humans having free will to choose as they so pleased and do what they will.

Our human minds are therefore highly manipulated and flawed thanks to Satan's ability to hack into our fallen world to continually deceive mankind. God has already stated in His Word that he is going to dump this world, aka Heaven & Earth 2.0, for a new upgrade of Heaven and Earth 3.0 and operational system to lock Satan and his fallen angels and demons out forever. Thus what is happening in our time period based on God's timeline is He is rolling out the new operational system and upgrade and during that time our world is going to become more transparent for what it really is as the god of this world, Satan and evil will run amok as thinks break down in society.

God in all his sovereignty from our fallen world where Satan rules, has sent Jesus Christ as humanity's only hope and savior to enable us entry into the new Heaven and Earth 3.0 and operational system. Accepting Jesus, the Holy Spirit and His Word into the Christian heart, seals us forever in eternity. Those who do not accept Jesus will end up in the old operational system dead end, the lake of fire where there will be no opportunity to escape. That program will be sealed off as God's new operational system won't be available to anyone who rejected His Son.

I hope that clarifies things up a bit for you. Satan has used this evolution thing as an illusion to try and displace God and His Creation.

Can you come up for air from your irrational diatribe long enough to realize you have no right to throw the name of Jesus around as your authority if you're not going to listen to Him? I assure you that you are in error. If you are in any doubt, check with the Lord. And hear what He has to say. (I know you have yet to do this, because your ears are so full of the worldly viewpoint that you won't hear a thing the Lord tells you.)

Salvation comes through strict obedience to the Lord. It is HIS grace that covers the repentant who come to Him in all humility. You cannot go against Him and deny His word and expect to be saved. I would look to your own arrogance and address it if I were in your place. The rest of us have enough humility to accept God's word and get it straight from the horse's mouth: HIS.

(In case you missed it, the Book of Genesis came from the Lord, and He expects you to understand it. Since you will not, do not think for one minute that He will be pleased with your attitude. Attitudes like yours are out of place in heaven. Guess what? That makes you out of place, also.)

Submitted by April (not verified) on Thu, 2012-11-01 12:05.

It's pretty obvious that when carbon dating methods don't get the results that evolutionists want, they feel free to call the results "unreliable." But if the results agree with assumptions they have, then the carbon dating method is supposed to be fool-proof. The fact of the matter is that carbon dating is a little bit of data and a lot of interpretation. Scientists interpret the data given parameters they have set up and assumptions they have made. And when, operating by their own rules, they find that their theories fail, suddenly carbon dating is at fault. It's the theory that's at fault, and the interpretation of the data. If I were interpreting data, I would corroborate it with written historical information. I wouldn't come up with wild theories that go against eye-witness testimony. Evolutionists can expect to be wrong about the age of the earth every time, and they will have to keep on revising it (as they are wont to do), because they base their entire theory on wishful thinking instead of historical fact.

Boggled Mind wrote:
"It is truly bizarre that some of you guys can clearly read, can clearly spell and write articulate sentences, and apparently are able to successfully navigate normal society, but are yet so completely stark-raving irrational in your thoughts. It's a little frightening how otherwise sane people can be so thoroughly brainwashed. It boggles the mind."

April wrote:
"Can you come up for air from your irrational diatribe long enough to realize you have no right to throw the name of Jesus around as your authority if you're not going to listen to Him? I assure you that you are in error. If you are in any doubt, check with the Lord."

In reading through this entire thread, I can understand why there is a great deal of emotion on both sides. Both sides clearly feel they are speaking for God's truth and are qualified to rebuke the other. Unfortunately, citing Genesis as if it settles the matter begs the question! Devoted followers of Jesus Christ who embrace the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture can nevertheless hold very different understandings of the word YOM in Genesis 1 (including 24 hour day and indeterminate period of time) and even hold to very different understandings of "the evening and the morning was the nth YOM" (whether referring to the boundaries of a single night OR an idiomatic construction of ancient Hebrew). And of course, the Bible says NOTHING about Carbon-14 dating and its role in determining who is the most godly person and devoted follower of Jesus when Christians do battle over these issues.

May I suggest a focus on the scientific evidence (when the conflict is C-14 dating methodology) and the Hebrew Bible evidence (when the conflict is exegetical)? Trading barbs and insults over who has the most compromised intellectual capabilities or the most compromised spiritual condition does little to resolve the matter. And in both cases, a great deal more specifics would be helpful to participants and readers alike. Indeed, in that regard the main article was disappointing because of a frustrating absence of primary source citations. (Indeed, I have found this trend frustration throughout the Creation Moments website and even within its secondary links.)

And how ironic that a complaint of "a little bit of data and a lot of interpretation" appeared within a diatribe that was sadly compromised by exactly that! (Zero data and a lot of emotional attacks---and subjective interpretations which communicated little more than the alleged spiritual superiority of the writer!)

I suppose it also depends upon what is the intended purpose of this website. Is it to educate and inform the visitor *or* is to declare anyone apostate who fails to agree with "our side's" particular interpretation of scripture and God's creation? Statements like "Evolutionists can expect to be wrong about the age of the earth every time" educate no one on any topic other than the writer's disdain for someone who is on "the other side". And I wonder: Is Christ honored in such a declaration?, especially when "evolutionist" is a term that is more epithet than carefully descriptive. (After all, virtually every young earth creationist leader concedes that micro-evolution is evident throughout the biosphere.)

My main purpose in writing is simply to express my disappointment in the venom expressed within some of the comments. Enough said.

Submitted by martin (not verified) on Tue, 2013-03-19 12:21.

I understand and agree that each side has said things that are not warm and fuzzy to each other.That being said, you must understand that each is responding in the belief that their religion is under attack and must be defended. So say that is part of being human. I would also say that is what the Bible calls the sin nature and proof is here for all to see. For those that believe in Christ know that sin and death came in to this world by one man (Adam) and before that there was no sin and no death (Romans). So if Genesis is not as it is written, then Christ did not need to die for us and we are doomed and fools for believing in Him.

Submitted by Ross (not verified) on Sun, 2013-06-23 16:50.

The Bible nowhere teaches a long age for the earth or universe. Stop blindly following crooked theologians and learn to think for yourself. In Matthew 19:4, Jesus said, "Have ye read,that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female" when speaking of Adam and Eve. They were CREATED AT THE BEGINNING WHICH MEANS HUMANS AND DINOSAURS WERE CREATED AT THE SAME TIME! Jesus also said in John 5:46-47, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believe Me for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writing, how shall ye believe My words." The first words that Moses wrote are found in Genesis, and an elementary school can understand that the days of creation are literal 24-hour days. Calling God a liar is serious business!

Saito Singh seems a lot like "Spock" on Star Trek....very logical captain Kirk. His/her points are fair and logical although it is somewhat evident that he/she leans toward evolution per Darwin. This is OK as this type person can eventually be reasoned with, whoever it is that can produce BETTER evidence for their arguement. Saito is also correct that people here are rude, blind, one-sided name callers. I think the solution is to have hard core Darwin-evolutionists DATE THE BONES THEMSELVES, NOT THE ROCKS THE BONES ARE IN!!!!!!! They themselves can "handle" the bones so that THEY can be SURE no contamination can/has occurred. Is that FAIR???? How about REPEATING the dating processes say....100 times to seeeeee if they get the SAME results time after time without fail? Any takers from the Darwin side? Are you willing to submit your name and title and place of employment? If no, then WHY NOT?

'It's pretty obvious that when carbon dating methods don't get the results that evolutionists want, they feel free to call the results "unreliable."' --- April

No, April. It is NOT "pretty obvious". I have no doubt that it is your opinion. And it is not just "evolutionists" who are distressed at the misuse of Carbon-dating among those poorly trained in its application.

I don't know how much experience you have in evaluating isotopic carbon assay quality controls, but to pretend that such debates come down to laboratories arbitrarily calling results "unreliable" leaves me speechless. So I'm very interested in whatever details you can provide, especially seeing how you emphasized the importance of eye-witness testimony in solving matters of dispute.

Submitted by Gwen (not verified) on Tue, 2012-11-27 16:05.

While I was reading this aloud to my 11-year-old son, he suggested that perhaps the results were uniformly skewed. I asked him to explain. He mentioned that dogs age approximately 7 years, compared to human age progression. So, when we arbitrarily assigned a factor of 10 years of development (again compared to human age progression) for each year of earth habitation for the dinosaurs, this would put the actual ages of the dinosaur bones at between 2200 and 3900 years old -- close to the age of some of the dinosaurs at the time of Noah's Flood. With this in mind, in order to compensate for these factors, what carbon-14 comparisons have been made on recent human and animal carcasses?

A much more valuable and ongoing sets of comparison have been carried out on a great many DIFFERENT kinds of reliable age indicators, such as tree rings. C-14 methods correlate remarkably well. (Comparisons with recently deceased animals would be pointless. Carbon 14 dating is not use on some animal that died a few months ago. It is used over periods of many centuries and millenia.)

Let's be honest with ourselves. Carbon-14 and other radiometric dating methods (and the great many NON-radiometric dating methods) all harmonize well and are remarkably useful. The ONLY people who doubt them have sectarian reasons for doing so. Indeed, I was once one of them. Because my church doubted them, I doubted them. That was my only reason. Yes, I could find websites written by people with similar Biblical reasons for doubting the facts and I felt reaffirmed by them. But that is not how evidence is examined. We can't reject data just because we dislike the implications for our worldview.

Happily, I found eventually that God's creation poses no conflict with God's Bible. The conflicts are when man-made traditions insists that the Bible MUST say what the tradition wants it to say.

>With this in mind, in order to compensate for these factors, what carbon-14 comparisons have been made on recent human and animal carcasses?
>

Recent carcasses would not provide a useful test. But comparisons with a wide range of tree ring data (as just one kind of comparison test) from all over the world and of varying ages has demonstrated that Carbon-14 dating is INCREDIBLY useful and accurate.

The only people who denigrate Carbon-14 dating techniques are those who have non-scientific reasons for doing so. (And yes, I was one of them. Because my church doubted carbon dating, I did too, despite the evidence.)

Submitted by S. Johnson (not verified) on Tue, 2012-12-04 21:56.

I normally would not say the following because I know that certain people arn't going to like it but when it comes to the persistant, unending attempts to teach your creationist belief in the schools as "science", I have no choice but to finally speak out.

I do not believe in Creationism for the following reasons:

1. Why does there have to be any conflict with believing in evolution and at the same time, believing in a higher power? Even though evolution may conflict with the Bible's teaching that everything was created all at once does not mean that it conflicts with many other sacred belief systems of a Supreme Being.

2. I do not worship the God of the Old Testament. This is a mean, punishing, jealous God of Fear. My personal, private God is a God of Love.

3. There are many parts of the Old Testament that appear to be based on nonsense, having no scientific validation what-so-ever. For example:

a. How do you explain scientifically how someone can be changed into a pillarof salt?!!

b. If there was a great flood that covered the entire Earth less than 6,000 years ago, where is the scientific evidence??

c. Explain scientifically how a snake can talk.

d. Where in Nature has a female ever come from a male's rib? A primary law of nature is that males come out of females, not vice versa.

e. The science of Astronomy has now for 100s of years invalidated the idea that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

f. Explain how simply eating an apple can be blamed for all the suffering on this earth?

g. Where is there any proof that people have lived to be almost a thousand years old?

h. How can a loving God expect people to sacrifice animals for him?

There are many other ridiculous, illogical examples like these found in the Bible that clearly go against primary laws of nature and basic common sense, thus proving that creationism has absolutely nothing to do with science.

4. How can the Bible claim to be the only source of Truth when there were many other sacred beliefs and types of worship found all over the world long before the Bible was even written. And many of these religions make a lot more sense than the Old Testament.

5. Genesis appears to be written by misogynists who hate women. Everything it says is negative towards women: God is he, not she. Where is the scientific proof of this? He created man first before woman and created her out of man as a helper for man. Again, where is the scientific evidence? Then of course mankind is in suffering because some woman ate an apple. How ridiculous is that? As punishment, God told her that she must submit to her husband. How selfish is that? And that he will greatly increase her pain in childbirth. How cruel is that? Then, of course, there is polygamy, thus dehumanizing women to nothing but property.

In summary, don't get me wrong. I believe in a Supreme Being. But this Supreme Being is a very loving, merciful, fairminded, kind hearted being who has nothing to do with your "creationist" god, the God of the Old Testament.

Good questions Mr Johnson
Creation Ministries International has over 7000 articles i would recommend to read what their answers are to your questions it helped me a lot.
Thanks

Submitted by Stephanie (not verified) on Thu, 2012-12-13 07:53.

Hi, S. Johnson,

I was hoping that someone much smarter than I would respond to you, but here I am. You bring up many excellent points. And if I were looking at God, the Bible, and faith in a head knowledge, logical way, I suppose I would agree with you completely. But I can't. God is so much more than that and because He is a God of the supernatural it changes my view.

I want to respond to probably the most important statement you made first.
"I do not worship the God of the Old Testament. This is a mean, punishing, jealous God of Fear. My personal, private God is a God of Love."

The God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. In Hebrews 13:8 the Bible tells us that He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. In 1 John 4:8 we also see that isn't just loving, but God IS love. The same God that is in the New Testament, the God that came in flesh, Jesus Christ, is the same loving God of the Old Testament.

But, we also see in the Word that God is a Holy God. He hates sin and can't be around it. We're told in Romans 6:23 that the wages of sin is death. And when God saw the sin in the Garden, He immediately began to set up His redemption plan for mankind. Genesis 3:14-15 is God telling Adam and Eve because of what they did He is sending His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to die a horrific death for us so we can have salvation. That is a gift of love. Something He didn't have to do, and believe me, something I wouldn't have done if I were God.

It's true, God is a jealous God. But to understand God's jealousy we have to truly understand the heart of God. We often put God in a box of human limitations. We see Him through our human and limited eyes. But God is not human. He is not us. When we think of jealousy we think of a human jealousy. I want to share this quote with you that I found about God's jealousy.

"The word “jealousy” often carries a negative connotation. Yet, when the Scriptures speak of God as a jealous God, it means that He desires us in the purest, most relentless way. His is a jealousy that humankind can never know, for God is the only one who has a right to be jealous, because He is the only one who is perfect in love. His jealousy is not controlling—it is releasing. Holy jealousy speaks of God’s passionate commitment to us. It underscores the truth that God does not just love us because He has to, but because He wants to. He is not moved to love us merely to maintain His own moral excellence, but because He desires us."

A completely different kind of jealousy.

Now, I will say, I am a woman and when I read the Bible I see nothing but love and respect for women. Yes, He punished Eve because there are consequences to sin. I'm a mom, and when my kids do something wrong there are consequences for their behavior. I want them to learn, to never do that again, and become responsible adults. If there were no consequences, that wouldn't happen. I wasn't thrilled about the painful childbirth thing, but there are consequences. But, if you look at the entire Bible, it wasn't Eve who was "blamed" for the fall of man, it was Adam. Romans 5:12 tells us sin came through Adam, not Eve.

I also see how God used women in the Bible to make HUGE impacts on the Kingdom of God. I think of Ruth, who through her loyalty and obedience was a woman in which you can trace the lineage of Christ. I think of Deborah who God used to bring the Israelites victory over the Canaanites. I think of Mary who, because of her righteousness, was called to greatness and gave birth to the Messiah. I think of Mary Magdalene who Christ delivered from many demons and then was used to tell the disciples Christ had risen from the dead! God has used women in mighty, mighty ways. We just have to understand the Bible in context and recognize the times in which it was written.

In response to this question:
"How can the Bible claim to be the only source of Truth when there were many other sacred beliefs and types of worship found all over the world long before the Bible was even written. And many of these religions make a lot more sense than the Old Testament."

One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible are the prophecies. The Bible was written over a span of 1500 years, 66 books, and over 40 different authors. And yet, approximately 2500 prophecies are in the Word of God and 2000 have been fulfilled. The other 500 have yet to be fulfilled (approximate numbers). God hasn't missed one yet. The odds of that happening, for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 10^2000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it).

A lot of your questions are hard to answer because there is no scientific reason behind it. As I said before, God is a God of the supernatural. He is a God of miracles. He is not bound by human limitations. How could God part the Red Sea so Moses and the Israelites could cross over on dry land? How could Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead? How could Jesus heal the blind? How could God rain manna from heaven to feed the Israelites? How could God love us with such a tremendous love that He would tolerate mankind, send His only Son on the cross, bear on His shoulders every ugly sin you committed, every ugly sin I committed, every ugly sin we can't even imagine so we could choose to spend eternity with Him?

There is only one answer. Because He is God! The God of the Old Testament, the God of the New Testament, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, the One and Only God! And S. Johnson, that God loves you very much!

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Submitted by Bev (not verified) on Thu, 2012-12-13 20:29.

Stephanie - your comments were wonderful. I hope that S. Johnson has an opportunity to read them and ponder them. Thank you!

Submitted by Gwen (not verified) on Fri, 2012-12-14 15:01.

I want to thank Stephanie for her well-thought-out, carefully expressed, and gracious reply to the earlier post. You answered that in both an accurate and kindly way.

I agree with Stephanie. Whenever I read the Old Testament prophets, who are warning of punishments to come for a rebellious nation turning from God, I do not see anything but a grave concern for people who are headed for a cliff to their own destruction. I never sense a vindictive spirit from God toward the disobedient. In fact, what I do see is a reluctance on God's part to have to go ahead with punishing the people He created. Whereas people may rejoice in the punishment of the wicked (I know that I certainly do at times), God is grieved over the need for punishment in the first place, hence the many, many warnings that precede the eventual punishments. I feel a sense of weariness and deep sorrow coming from the heart of God as I read these warnings. And God HImself has said that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. (Ezekiel 33:11)

Going back to the comments by Saito Singh, I would like to respectfully disagree with his assertion that in C-14 analysis, "Recent carcasses would not provide a useful test." Really? Do I detect a hint of fear there? The usefulness of such a test would be in showing how accurate this test would be in arbitrarily determining the age of something whose age was already known. I think these tests are based on a number of assumptions, some of which could be wrong, as assumptions tend to be. Of course, I am not a scientist. Just a woman who cannot stop asking questions.

Submitted by Joe (not verified) on Wed, 2013-01-09 23:20.

Amen, Stephanie. I commend your Christ like answer, said with a tender loving heart. Often there is far too much Pride in these discussion boards.

Submitted by Craig Chilton (not verified) on Fri, 2012-12-21 23:04.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, S. Johnson!

By way of an analogy (not getting of-topic), I will point out that there are literally tens of millions of people in America who die-heartedly believe that President Obama wasn't born in the USA, and that his Hawaiian birth certificate is fraudulent. HOWEVER -- It is a verifiable FACT that Barack Hussein Obama's birth ANNOUNCEMENT was published, at the time of his birth in Honolulu, in the Honolulu newspaper -- and that is easily Googled and obvious for everyone to see.

NOW -- in order for THAT to have been faked, it would have required someone to travel back to August 5, 1961 (the day after Obama was born) to PLANT that story in the paper! And since no one has yet invented time travel, that is an absolute impossibility! There is NO DOUBT, due to that announcement in that paper, that Obama WAS born in the USA! So for any people to BE "birthers" requires total and complete IRRATIONALITY on their part. A complete disconnect from reality.

The SAME level of irrationality and disconnect that it takes for a person to live in denial of the worldwide ABUNDANCE of absolute PROOF of the evolutionary process! (And a substantial percentage of people who suffer from one of those disconnects probably also suffers from the other one.)

There's an old saying, which is very true --- and this is NOT meant to be name-calling. Again, it is only an analogy: "You can't teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig." In short, both "birthers" and "creationists" are SO deceived and set in their ways, it is almost impossible to help them by deprogramming them from such specious mindsets. So we have to keep in mind the fact that the primary purpose of posts like ours must to enable people who have NOT yet become conned in such vapid directions the reasons to avoid becoming so. Our posts have that unfortunate limitation. Thus, our posts are to hep the fence-sitters --- and to provide talking points to others like ourselves so that they can employ them to help still MORE fence-sitters before they become hopelessly mired in disinformation.

Submitted by Jeremy (not verified) on Wed, 2013-02-06 12:07.

My favorite thing to do when I need a good laugh is to do 2 google searches. First, do a search on google asking the question, "How do we know how old dinosaur fossils are?" The answer you will get is "Scientists can estimate the age of these fossils by the age of the layer of the sedementary rock they were found in." This sounds reasonable doesn't it? But you will get a really good laugh when you do a search on google and ask, "How do we know what the age of the sedementary layers of rock are?" The answer? "By the fossils that are found in them...!"

Seriously? This is science? Sounds like a circular logic lie.

Just something to think about! Lol!

Submitted by doc (not verified) on Wed, 2013-04-24 21:52.

Proof of evolution? everywhere? 'tain't so. Can't get from there to here, evolutionarily. No known way for it to happen. Check the fossil record: suddenly there are complex creatures. Looking for "simple" life on other planets? All the necessary chemicals are there, but so are all the necessary chemicals for a yo-yo..... don't see one of them either, and they are so much simplier than a living cell. Can't fool me. I've never found an evolutionist who can give "facts" that are real to explain their beliefs..... only suppositions. Oh, and I've been studying this since grade school, and I'm 61. If genetic biochemistry had been known two hundred years ago I doubt that evolutionism would be as common as it is today. -- Blessings!

Submitted by K. Rob (not verified) on Sun, 2013-05-12 06:13.

doc said:
" All the necessary chemicals are there, but so are all the necessary chemicals for a yo-yo..... don't see one of them either, and they are so much simplier than a living cell."

This is not true. There are barely any planets that have been found that contain all the necessary chemicals and a lack of toxic chemicals. And many of these do not exist in the 'habitable zone'. Only two or three have been discovered, millions of lightyears away and only in the last few years.

And I've never met a creationist who can give "facts" that a real to explain their beliefs either.
We are guessing from evidence and so are you. Our evidence I what we think we can derive from what we see, yours is what you found in a fairy tale book.

I dont support either side completely but your approach to combatting the other is distinctly flawed.

Submitted by Flakko (not verified) on Wed, 2013-08-21 00:27.

I'm a bit late to this party, but I would like to know where the fossil pieces were obtained? Are these fragments similar to those obtained by Hugh Miller from The Carnegie Museum? Those samples were contaminated with shellac and preservatives, a fact that the museum staff made Miller aware of. The scientists running the C14 analysis also told Miller that the samples were contaminated with shellac, yet Miller proceeded anyway and reported the C-14 dates as fact. Highly dishonest, if you ask me. Were the fossil fragments in the above story obtained from a museum, and thus contaminated with shellac and preservatives?